Lucas D. Sayre

CORE211- McCabe

October 10, 2001

 

Our Responsibility to Love, Our Responsibility to Life

         

In the course of my life, I have become increasingly aware of the importance of love. Indeed, I have observed the human desire for love: a yearning that penetrates the psyche and stimulates the soul. At some times love sooths, at others it stirs. It lies in our subconscious and plays a role in our decisions. As a fixture in human relationships, love requires nurture. We have a responsibility to provide this nurture for all human creation.

          Such a broad description of love’s role in our lives requires a broad definition of love itself. The term ‘love’ is often used to encompass three ideas. One is mutual endearment. This would be exemplified by the relationship between a parent and a child. In a loving relationship between the two, each has a level of respect for the other. Furthermore, each gains constructively from their respective roles. For instance, a parent learns of the joy of toiling to maintain a standard of living for a child. Working, cooking, doing the wash, and driving are all activities which require effort on the parent’s behalf, but which offer the great reward of raising a child. Likewise, a child has much to gain from the relationship. Being disciplined, doing chores, doing homework, and participating in family events all help shape the child’s work ethic and increase his or her abilities in life.

          The second basic idea encompassed by the term ‘love’ is friendship. A relationship between friends differs qualitatively from that of one between parent and child. The main difference lies in the level of each person in the relationship. Unlike the parent/child relationship, friends are on approximately an equal footing. This fact promotes a feeling of belonging. Peers go to school and participate in sports and other activities together. The common nature of peer activity provides a basis on which peers may communicate similar concerns, hopes, complaints, etc. For instance, members of a class are likely to complain about a test that nobody was able to finish in the allotted time. Also, members of a team will share the common goal of winning an upcoming game. When two or more peers have enough common interests and/or activities, friendships may blossom. Further, a simple “gelling” of personalities occurs. Nuances of speech and gesture of one friend may be appreciated by another.

          The third and final idea encompassed by ‘love’ is romantic involvement. Part of romance is a heightened case of personality “gelling.” Two members of the opposite sex (or same sex, as the case may be) enjoy the company of each other to an extent beyond that of simple friendship. Certain characteristics are valued in a romantic relationship, which are not in a general friendship. For example, a guy might like the fact that his girlfriend is “sweet,” sensitive, or endearing. These are qualities perhaps not usually found in his male friends. He searches these qualities out to complement his own self, or just for the sake of variety. The other aspect of romance is sexual attraction. The physical features of each member in such a relationship create an attraction between both people. This sexual attraction, combined with the friendly personal enjoyment, forms a romantic relationship.

          Whereas love encompasses these three basic ideas, they are not mutually exclusive of one another. In other words, any given relationship will often involve more than one of the three ideas of love. Lovers are often great friends as well. A married couple may have all three. They share a sexual bond, a friendship, as well as a mutual endearment for each other as a parent and spouse. Friendships have often blossomed into romantic relationships, and romantic relationships may include mutual respect when they form a marital bond.

          Life is filled with human interactions. In the course of any person’s life, he or she will encounter many people: parents, peers, coaches, bosses, employees, etc. Let me use my life as an example. By no means does my life stand out to any degree from that of another average person. I am twenty years old, therefore I do not have the life experience of an older person, however, in my modest life I have still encountered a great many people. From my earliest age I remember my parents, brothers, grandparents, and relatives. I remember family gatherings, holidays, and the daily family dinners. As I think of myself growing older, I remember football coaches, watching my brother play high school ball, and seeing my father coach youth soccer. Still further along, I recall taking high school classes, teachers, and being accepted to Notre Dame. The rest of my history has yet to be written. Alas, the sheer number of humans that I have had significant interactions with is too numerous to list in this paper, or even one many times longer.

          My life not being special, others’ lives must also include a large number of human interactions. Furthermore, every interaction brings forth a relationship of some type. While some of these relationships are fleeting or relatively unimportant, others have a pronounced effect on us. Indeed, they play a role in shaping who we are. A parent instills care, responsibility, discipline; a coach instills discipline, teamwork, toughness; a teacher instills mental aptitude; and a friend instills loyalty and understanding. The crux is that for a vast majority of people, their lives would be dramatically changed without human relationships. Moreover, a lack of human relation would cause a vacuum in the human persona. The values, lessons, and characteristics learned from daily interactions would not exist.

          The human need for relationships is not just a curious fact to be observed about life. Rather, it is a framework on which ethical responsibility may be based. In a philosophy similar to utilitarianism (but with key differences), humans have an ethical responsibility in their actions to promote the greatest common good. Since the framework exists that humans are positively affected by relationships, promoting these relationships increases the greatest common good for humans. This entails that humans are ethically responsible to respect and promote human relationships in general. This does not entail a responsibility to promote every relationship, for some relationships are innately harmful. Whereas an optimistic outlook on life as well as a realistic observation would show that most relationships are positive, a few are indeed negative. A few examples include an abusive spouse, a manipulative friend, and an intolerant teacher.

          In working towards the goal of the greatest common goal, we should fully participate in the positive relationships in which we are involved. Also, we should seek out additional such relationships. Furthermore, we should help others in the same cause. Doing so is, in effect, promoting love in general. These actions may be considered our duty towards life. Such a duty is neither selfish nor selfless, for all gain from the mutual promotion of relationship. A great literary example of a failure to follow this duty can be found in Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. In this 1818 novel, a man makes a creature out of “spare” body parts that he finds in a morgue. The man, Dr. Frankenstein, is a student of natural philosophy; more specifically, he studies what is know today as biology and anatomy. He becomes so well versed in his studies that he is able to create another living being. For almost two years time he totally devotes himself to creating this ‘put-together human.’ He finally succeeds. However, he is horrified by the creature’s appearance. Mary Shelly records his response as follows:

His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set… Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room… (Shelly, 34)

 

He then proceeded to mull around and then go to sleep. He never went back to check on his creation until the morning, when the creature was gone. Later in the novel, the reader learns that Frankenstein may appear as a monster in physical appearance, but he has compassionate and inquisitive emotions inside, just like a regular human-being. However, he is never accepted by society because of his monstrous looks, and he becomes bitter at his place in life, or rather lack thereof.

          Frankenstein’s actions are a model of irresponsibility. He creates a being and then abandons it. Suddenly brought into existence, the creature does what comes natural to it; it strives to survive and learn. However, it is deprived of the one thing that humans must have: love. In fact, Frankenstein did not even think about what would happen to his creation after it came to fruition. He did not even ponder whether a being made in such a manner could be capable of being loved, or for that matter whether the being would be capable of giving love. Frankenstein’s error is committed too often, although on a smaller scale. Perhaps the Beatles summed it up best when they sang, “The love you take/ is equal to the love you make.”